In addition, the anthrax was successful in causing the federal government to put in place some very expensive mechanisms to screen mail coming in to various federal agencies. I don’t know how much they cost, but I’d guess hundreds of millions of dollars. But this goes unnoticed, because it does not directly affect the general public.
For the record, “OOOGAA BOOGAA!” is going to my new response to every rightard facebook posting I see.
Likewise, of course, both are very different from any threat to “freedom,” which is what Foxx seems to think she is talking about.
Bull, we’ve had two recently I can think of. A: James von Brunn, US Holocaust Memorial Museum. B: Scott Roeder, murderer of George Tiller, Abortionist, in Church.
They just haven’t been muslim attacks. And we did, apparently, just avert a big one of those in NYC just now.
This Editorial sums up Rep. Foxx nicely.
B) is just straight-up murder - the intent was to kill a specific individual. Shooting up a public place certainly qualifies as terrorism, though.
I assume he was referring to external terrorism, i.e. that coming from somewhere outside the States. Those would have happened no matter how much we spend on the military anti-terrorism efforts.
Though we do need to look into handling terrorism better at home.
I would have to disagree. This was classic terrorism. It was politically motivated to cause fear to affect change.
Just because it wasn’t massive doesn’t make it not terrorism.
Maybe we should wait for another country to try it first and see if it can work. Even if there were just two or three countries to look at I’d be a lot more comfortable.
They shot him up in his church. I think that qualifies as a public place.
Anyway, there was a clear intent on the part of the murderer(s) to effect social change by scaring abortion providers out of the business. There’s a reason they all have metal detectors at their office doors, you know.
I’m curious to find out what the motivation for the shootings at Fort Hood were.
I’m going with PTSD.
Just today from The Nation:
shes right. For the Republicans. Obama proved terrorists don’t have the draw they once did. But health care reform is big and new. So it can be made to sound scary. This makes HC reform more important to the republicans than terrorism. Can’t think of a two similar issues that do the same thing for Democrats, but I am sure there are a couple. Same old Same old politics.
What?
I think he’s saying Obama winning the election proves that people aren’t that worried about terrorism, since the Democrats are “soft on terror” - not that Obama’s a terrorist.
Well, I hope that’s what he’s saying.
I can’t trust anyone with a name containing back-to-back x-es.
Exxon still loves us, right?
Right?
What would you call that little fiasco at some Texas military base I seem to recall hearing about on the news this past week?
Equating health care with terrorism is just as senseless as equating it with murder and rape. Terrorism is a crime. Or is Foxx really implying that health care is like the Taliban? Watch out - Obama bin Health Care is going to get you!
That little fiasco had not occurred when AD posted. Anyway, I’m not sure that really counts as a terrorist attack - the shooter was a Muslim, but he was an Army psychiatrist who was upset about being deployed to Iraq.